Well, they’ve won every Democratic primary in United States history. That’s a pretty effective dynasty. The fact that Obama (and, in fairness, Clinton) have bucked that trend is not evidence that being black (or female) is an advantage; it’s evidence that the candidates in question have overcome what has historically been a substantial disadvantage. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are leading the AL East in August, will you argue that small market teams have an inherent advantage in baseball?
I inferred no such thing, and intended no such inference. You used the word “norm,” which I concede is different from normal. But you used the word “norm” as a substitute for “not black.” I do not contend that this is racist usage. I contend that this is stupid usage. I don’t think you’re a racist; I think you’re stupid. Happy now?
You are arguing that if Obama were white, he would be losing to Hilary Clinton. This is functionally the same as saying that his race is the only factor underlying his current lead.
Oh, I get it. You’d rather play gotcha than actually discuss anything with anyone. When your analyses are as facile as the ones you’ve contributed here, I can understand that, I guess, but the grownups are trying to elect a President. Here, I’ll rephrase my statement:
“I am voting for Barack Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with his race, except insofar as his race has contributed - in ways that are not quantifiable, and therefore aren’t really worth worrying about - to the policy opinions, personality traits, and skills that I consider valuable.”
I reviewed the Ferarro link, and all of her comments were suggesting that sexism, not racism were working against Clinton. I would disagree with that. The whole racist thing was started by Shayna’s bullshit accusation that Ferarro was a racist bitch.
When Ferarro finally addresses Obama’s campaign she had this to say :
Its pretty clear to me now that Ferarro was all about sexism not racism.
I hate to quibble, but your statement still suggests I’m excluding blacks from the norm and therefore racialist if not racist. I included 80% of blacks inside the norm.
Your assumption is the problem. Why are you using the voting tendencies of non-blacks to figure out how far out the blacks deviate? You could just as easily make blacks your point of reference and claim that everyone else is anamolous, but you’re not doing that because you’re biased and can’t even see it.
Well, the logic from Ferarro’s point of view (I’m guessing) is that given Hillary had what appeared to be an insurmountable lead over tested white males, and that democrats were anxious to see a woman in the white house in 09. If a white man couldn’t beat her, a black man sure seems to have.
I would never mistake you for Flying Dutchman – perish the thought! But do note a couple of things. First, I didn’t say with certainty that it wouldn’t change, I merely said I’m not necessarily convinced. But I also said that in order for that to be the case, all things would have to remain the same. Obviously we know that realistically there’s a slim chance of Barack Obama the person being the same exact person if he grew up with a different color skin. But that doesn’t mean that a white Barack Obama as we know him would be doing any differently in this contest than he currently is.
It’s a given that he’s running a smart campaign, that he’s well-organized and well-funded. He’s extremely bright with an outstanding legislative history of 11 years in public office. He’s got a reputation for working across the aisle with Republicans like Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn. He’s enthusiastic and inspiring. And so on and so on.
Given that all those characteristics stay the same, and Hillary still mis-manages her campaign into the financial toilet, there’s still all the in-fighting amongst her staff, she still campaigns with the “kitchen sink” mentality, etc., why would the calculus necessarily change? I guess the only definitive way I can state with any amount of certainty that it would change is that Bill Clinton would never have had a reason to shoot his mouth off with his racial comments and we wouldn’t have had the backlash that engendered.
I actually completely agree with you here. We could never really know one way or the other.
Oh wow, what a nice thing to say. Thank you, Left Hand of Dorkness. I think I’ll take you up on that suggestion for the rest of this thread. Thanks!
Your point is what? That black votes shouldn’t count? Do you want to go back to the original Constitution and count them as 3/5 of a person? Do you lie on your sheets or do you wear them?
What a fucking weaselass Hillary Clinton is. Not only did she not take a strong stand to denounce the ugly remarks by her surrogate, but she decided to turn it on Barack Obama.
For those who call me shrill in this thread, understand one thing, I am PISSED OFF nearly to the point of being ENRAGED. I think these remarks and the response by Hillary’s campaign are utterly contemptible. And the voters in the remaining contests ought to renounce and reject her. This is not what we need running our government. Jesus, I am furious.
ETA: Oh, and now that bitch, Fararro, has warned Barack Obama not to piss of people like her because he’ll need her later. The unmitigated gall of that woman.
I hope he tells her where to shove her money, just like he’s told the lobbyists what they can do with theirs. Un-fucking-believeable.
Just when you think that the Clinton campaign can’t sink any lower…
The stench of desperation is upon them. They will tear the party down rather than let themselves be rendered meaningless and obsolete.
C’mon. There’s no possible way Obama could win the election without Walter Mondale’s vice-presidential candidate on his side. Why, the woman is a living breathing Trivial Pursuit question!
She couldn’t have been any more overt in saying that being black and being male work to his advantage. I really think she couldn’t have been any more clear, short of saying “They’re only voting for him because he’s a black man.”
I think your post is otherwise spot-on, though.
